were do i stand

jhxmt

My understanding is that the OP ordered a sofa, took it back or otherwise returned it and got a refund (effectively cancelling the contract). They then received a replacement sofa without paying for it, due to a clerical error by the sofa company (which hadn't realised it had both given a replacement and a refund).

The OP appears to have been aware of this mistake but kept the new sofa anyway, and the sofa company has now discovered their mistake and is asking for the sofa back.

If we do assume (and it's only an assumption I'm making) that the distance selling regulations (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/uksi_20002334_en.pdf) apply here, then we can probably also assume that the sofa in question counts as goods supplied under a contract that has now been cancelled.

Point 17 of the linked PDF (page 8 of 18), which applies where the contract has been cancelled and relates to the restoration of goods by the consumer after cancellation, states that "on cancellation, the consumer shall be under a duty to restore the goods to the supplier in accordance with this regulation".

As I say, I'm assuming these regulations apply to this sale. I don't know.

kenwalker

taxiphil wrote: »

Blindingly obvious difference isn't it?

A credit card for your neighbour has their name on the envelope! Therefore it is clearly the property of your neighbour. If it is misdelivered you should pass it on to your neighbour or return to sender.

If you take delivery of a parcel for your neighbour, the same thing applies. The delivery agent appoints you as a custodian but never implies that the parcel is your property. Again, the recipient's name is on the parcel!

The sofa in question was delivered to the correct person. It's just that the person didn't order it. Hence unsolicited goods.

Simple!



Hope my response brightened up your day as much as you were hoping!

How many times do you have to be told! The Unsolicited Goods Act applies where companies try to obtain money from the recipient. This company is not trying to do that. They are only trying to get their goods back which were supplied in error.

Bamber19

dmg24 wrote: »

Anyone else sensing a troll alert?!!

No, i'm sensing that the 89 refers to their year of birth and that they're not the most mature for their age at that.

borosteve_2

Bamber19 wrote: »

No, i'm sensing that the 89 refers to their year of birth and that they're not the msot mature for their age at that.

I don't think so. Checking their other posts (I was bored) they were asking about benefits for their son at college. So I think it may well be their IQ or we're still on troll alert.

tigtag02

taxiphil wrote: »

Hope my response brightened up your day as much as you were hoping!

Not really ~ pretty much the same drivel you spouted on the rest of the thread :rolleyes:

Thanks for trying though!